Re: Re: (TFT) Number Crunching: Example

[srydzews@ix.netcom.com]

Dan Tulloh writes:
>Stan asks:
>
>> I've been trying to follow this WHOLE topic and I just 
>> get confused.  

('Stan asks'?  Er, it wasn't me asking that question.  I 
 was the one who posted the original number crunching.
 My stupid habit of not signing my messages probably 
 made things confusing.)

But you raise an interesting point, that in AM there's 
no reference to changing the range of automatic success/
critical hits on rolls of 4+ dice, meaning that if 
you're rolling six dice there is not even a chance 
of automatic success, since you can't roll a five or
less.  

I'm not sure, but I believe the compendium may change 
things to allow for critical hits on 4+ dice. (Not that
the compendium is infallible...)  But regardless, since 
we're already talking about modifying the rules there's
no reason why we can't say that we'll just apply the 
ITL p.38 rules to AM (which is of course what I've been 
doing all along).

I think I prefer such a system, but I'll admit it's
a matter of taste.  I don't like the way that "highest
three" increases the chance of critical failure so 
greatly...also, while H3 does always gives you a chance 
of double or triple damage, the chance of it rapidly 
becomes almost theoretical. 

On a regular 3d6 roll there's approximately a 2% 
chance of rolling a 17 or 18, and a 2% chance of 
a 3 or 4.  Here's my estimate of the percentages 
for such things happening with the H3 method:

Chance of |
Rolling:  |  4d6     5d6     6d6
----------|-----------------------
 17 or 18 |   6%     12%     18%
  3 or  4 |  .42%    .08%    .01%

These are estimates...if they're off by a material 
margin I apologize.  

>We can argue about whether there's an increased chance
>of weapon breakage (I don't feel there would be)

Why not?  On an 18 your weapon breaks, right?  Since
your chance of rolling an 18 increases on 4+ die rolls
with H3, doesn't that mean more more broken weapons?

> I think this system applies very well to saving rolls.
> If I attempt a very difficult task, there should be 
> an increased risk of failure.  If I am an expert in the
> field of the task, I can mitigate this chance due to 
> my superior knowledge/skill.

I have no objections to the idea of increasing the chance 
of critical failure on harder rolls and decreasing the
chance of critical success.  My concern is with the degree 
to which H3 changes the chances of these events. 

Look at it this way: on a 3d6 roll there's about a 4% 
chance of a non-standard result, with that 4% being 
evenly split between critical failure and critical
success.  

I wouldn't mind if the chance of something bad 
happening became greater on a harder roll and the 
chance of something good became less, but I think 
the sum chance of unusual things happening shouldn't
go too far above the four percent level.  Having four
percent of rolls give critical results is plenty for 
me.  With H3, the chances ramp up to the point where 
over one out of six rolls 'go critical' if you're 
rolling 6d--way too much for my liking.  But this is 
just my preference in such things.  To each his own...

Stan
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"